Social and political evolution from a conservatarian perspective

Among the grating celebrations for those preaching to an already-faithful choir that exist with near uniformity in the conservative stratosphere, I was pleased today (it doesn’t happen often) to find a timely piece by The Federalist’s Bre Payton on Planned Parenthood’s destruction among black individuals.

This is something that merits a “Goes to 11” caliber of amplification, but too many in the conservative movement — namely those with the platforms to mount a meaningful attack — too often skittishly sidestep or disregard it entirely.

To the surprise of none who have followed me on Twitter or spent more than 5 minutes at this blog, I’m not among those skittish voices (I’m @NAAPC)…

I’ve noted previously that unless we win the abortion debate among the culture, any legislative wins we temporarily chalk up will only give the institutional left more ammunition with which to continue winning that debate where it matters most and where future, lasting mandates are born: In the national conversation, culturally. For worse or more worse, while we scream “MURDER!” with sincerity and they shout “WOMEN’S RIGHTS!” for political expedience — theirs resonates a lot more among our conservative-weary-by-design, recreationally-engaged electorate. It’s for that reason that I argue strongly for our amplified voices to level a cultural war on the subject. And breathlessly panting Biblical hellfire is not the way to win that cultural war. (There are many ingredients to winning culturally on abortion, and I note a central yet entirely untapped ingredient in a piece you can read here.)

Given the disproportionate rate of abortion among Americans who happen to be black, coupled with Planned Parenthood’s entirely racist roots — the doorsteps of minorities are a critical place for us to start waging that cultural war. As Payton correctly notes…

That Planned Parenthood kills more “#BlackLivesMatter” than any other race, or than police ever have or will combined for that matter, merits screaming amplification. So kudos to Bre for writing it, and The Federalist for publishing it.

Still, Bre goes on to note…

Planned Parenthood is killing black babies at a higher rate than any other race in the U.S., which certainly seems to fulfill the goal of their racist founder to minimize the black population.

I’m all for fighting fire-with-fire. I encourage conservatives to do so in the climate change debate by effectively mocking leftists for implying that they can stop the climate from changing, and I’ll also do so in the abortion conversation by throwing the “Started to solve the negro problem” reality in the face of abortion advocates.

But when it comes to more formal efforts to win the conversation, we’ll never do so if we’re not staunch advocates for persistent intellectual honesty. And in that way, it bears noting that while Planned Parenthood was initially started by a eugenicist and racist who hoped to quell minority populations…

Today Planned Parenthood’s purpose, in tandem with the left’s generally, is to mitigate the value of “family” by making pregnancy something that’s viewed casually.

After all, who needs all the bad press of quelling a population based on race and ethnicity — when you can instead create conditions that ensure more and more people will be dependent on the government, and controlled that way?

That — devaluing the family and perpetuating the resulting disparity — is the left’s goal today, and that is how Planned Parenthood works diligently to help the left achieve that goal. And when and if they can achieve that goal to its logical conclusion of enormous government control with little-to-no individual liberty prohibiting that government, then yes…count on the left to someday return to their ancestral demand for eugenics “in the interest of the greater, moral good.”

Many conservatives have for decades noted the disparity of abortion among black women versus those of other races. But I want to see far more of our most amplified voices doing the same thing and doing it far more consistently and forcefully. And when they do so formally from their well-amplified platforms, they should resist the low-hanging fruit of intellectual dishonesty and instead make the more updated, effective and sustainable case…

While Planned Parenthood was in fact started to minimize minority populations…today, consistent with the left’s enterprise mission, they work instead to create to an environment where those minority populations will be more easily controlled by their government overlords. And they do this by devaluing pregnancy, thereby devaluing family, and ultimately exacerbating the most empirically-proven driver of disparity anywhere: Broken homes.

“That’s crazy talk!”, some may say. “If they’re telling women to have abortions, many of whom would likely be single mothers…how can you say they’re also supporting broken homes? Isn’t the opposite true?!”

A fair observation but, respectfully, a near-sighted one: Devaluing the gravity of pregnancy (i.e. starting a family) does far more for the left’s mission than does allowing pregnancy to retain the sanctity and seriousness it once did.

For more on the left’s effort to devalue family, please read this piece…

Post navigation

2 comments

I don’t claim to know how what I’m about to say can be condensed into enough of a “bumper sticker/sound bite” message, but here goes:

PP in theory achieved what their putative (but actually, only ostensible) mission statement was, when the “penumbras of emanations” case, Griswold v. CT, was decided in their favor– after that, Comstock Laws were kaput. Women had access to contraception information and devices. A Pournellian shift occurred, where the organization, unwilling to take “Yes” for an answer, veered from what it COULD have continued to do– counsel on contraception and provide referrals/treatment for women seeking contraceptive devices– when Roe was decided, and they went full-tilt-boogie to the dark side.

Now, there are many on the Right who do have qualms about saying that Margaret Sanger was totally wrong, insofar as her message is read to say that poor women ought to be discouraged from having children from a purely-practical standpoint of unaffordability of raising them — her MOTIVES may have not been good, but the result, “Freaknomically,” IS, in terms of the societal cost. (The demographic rendering of Social Security into actuarial unsoundness by non-replacement of workers is another issue for another day–I’m speaking about “transfer programs” and incarceration rates.)

My belief is that PP CAN be attacked on a “When did they decide to be evil?” tack– even Sanger can be shown to have been “right for the wrong reason,” in terms of the holding down of the population of the poor. Or. alternatively, she can be made out to be a cynical amoral opportunist in her having played to the racism of her era, but that that doesn’t mean everything she said was wrong– at least the contraception access part.

But I swear, I have NO idea how you get the attention of the lo-fo’s long enough to get them to agree– and many on the Right have too much invested in throwing her “baby” (infelicitous choice of idiomatic expression here) with her swimming-pool volume of bathwater.

[…] pieces about how marriage is actually an expression of [white] privilege. The Left excitedly promote abortion and thus dilute the gravity and seriousness with which young people look at starting families. The […]